The
legal fight regarding graphic warnings appears far from over as a
federal appeals court has ruled that the Food and Drug Administration is
allowed to force tobacco companies to affix the warnings on cigarette
packaging.

The
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, located in Cincinnati,
Ohio, ruled on Monday that graphic warning labels can convey factual
information (as the textual warnings on tobacco products do now), and
therefore are constitutionally sound.

Judge
Jane Branstetter Stranch wrote in her opinion that "people with the
same illness can and often will suffer a variety of differing symptoms,
but one wouldn't say that a list of symptoms characterizing a particular
medical condition is nonfactual and opinion-based as a result. So too
with graphic images."

While
these warning labels would only apply to cigarettes, people in the
cigar industry fear that such regulation could one day be applied to
cigars. It’s not without precedent. Cigars sold in Mexico, for example,
must carry graphic warnings very similar to the one struck down in this
ruling. And, for a short time in 2010, New York City forced tobacconists
to post similar graphic warnings at the point of sale and in their
shops—a judge later struck down the requirement.

Three
cigarette makers, including a subsidiary of Britain's Imperial Tobacco
Group PLC (the parent company of Altadis S.A.) had originally filed the
lawsuit in Kentucky in 2009, after the FDA was granted control over the
U.S. tobacco industry and the agency tried to mandate nine extremely
graphic warning labels. Some of the graphic images included a cloud of
smoke near a newborn’s face and a dead smoker lying on an autopsy table
with stitches in his chest.

The
cigarette makers argued such warnings violated their right to free
speech, but in 2010, U.S. District Judge Joseph H. McKinley ruled
against the tobacco companies, saying the warnings did not infringe on
their rights. Monday’s ruling was the result of the cigarette makers’
appeal.

This
lawsuit is separate from one that was filed last August in Washington
by the same cigarette makers, which resulted in a federal judge blocking
the new requirement earlier this year.

While
the court said graphic warnings were not unconstitutional, it shied
away from ruling specifically on the nine graphic warning labels in
question.

"This
court did not address the constitutionality of the nine graphic images
the FDA seeks to impose," said Bryan Hatchell, a spokesman for R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co. in a USA Today report.

The
FDA has already made its impact on the cigarette indusdtry, banning all
flavored cigarettes save for menthol, limiting the release of new
products, limiting advertising and placing restrictions on the use of
words such as "light"—and other tobacco products, but so far the cigar
industry has remained largely unaffected. In 2010, though, the agency
publicly declared it intends to regulate premium cigars, too.

As
a response, the Cigar Rights of America and the International Premium
Cigars & Pipe Retailers association have been involved with
introducing two bills, S. 1461 and H.R. 1639, that aim to remove the
FDA’s jurisdiction over the premium cigar industry.

Does this mean that McDonalds and Burger King will be required to show photos of horribly obese or diabetic infections on hamburger cartons and wrappers?

matthew.yotko@yahoo.comMarch 24, 2012 6:50pm ET

No... But it SHOULD. It's amazing to me that the same organization that purports to be the watchdog and bastion of health and safety for food and drugs would require this, and then allow fast food chains to put plastics and addictive chemicals in their food with no notice whatsoever to the consumer. Or, better yet, to actively and aggressively restrict and prohibit the sale of all natural products in examples such as the raids on Amish farmers who sell milk and cheese.

The long and short of it is that you have to ask yourself who they're looking out for. I think you'll find that if you examine the question closely, you'll come to the determination that it most definitely isn't We, The People.